Effects of farm and landscape management on bird and butterfly conservation in western Honduras

Abstract

Abstract. Previous research has indicated that a substantial portion of native flora and fauna may persist in agricultural mosaics in the Neotropics. However, understanding the relative importance of different habitat factors and management practices at different scales for sustaining this biodiversity has proven somewhat elusive. In addition, most such research has taken place in only a few fairly well-studied landscapes, thus limiting our ability to infer broader patterns that might be transferred to unstudied locales. This study expands the geographic breadth of prior research by evaluating bird and butterfly assemblages in an agricultural landscape in the Río Copán watershed of western Honduras. The study also provides a systematic assessment of the relative influence of categorical and continuous habitat variables across a range of scales likely to be significant for birds and butterflies. Overall, we recorded 145 tree species, 139 bird species, and 119 butterfly species. Birds and butterflies displayed contrasting responses to land cover: birds were most strongly associated with dense vegetation in broadleaf forests, forest fallows, shade-grown coffee farms, and live fences, while butterflies were most abundant in live fences, pastures, and riparian forests. Bird assemblages were heavily skewed toward common and non-forest-dependent species, likely due to the young age and high disturbance level of forest plots. In contrast, butterfly assemblages contained a substantial proportion of forest-dependent species, which were observed in forests as well as pastures and live fences. Contrary to expectations, categorical land cover descriptors were more effective at explaining faunal assemblage patterns than continuous habitat descriptors related to vegetation and landscape context. In addition, plot scale (25-100 m) habitat features had a greater influence on faunal assemblages than did neighborhood scale (200-3000 m) landscape composition or structure, although differences in management intensity at the scale of the entire watershed (5-20 km) also exerted a strong influence on conservation outcomes.Key words: agriculture; agroforestry; biodiversity conservation; birds; butterflies; ecoagriculture; Honduras; land cover; landscape ecology; silvopasture.

Bird communities in forested and human-modified landscapes of Central Panama: a baseline survey for a native species reforestation treatment

“…The shift from dominance by understory insectivores and omnivores in mature forest to scrub granivores in more open habitats is similar to previous descriptions for bird communities in Central America (Petit et al 1999;Milder et al 2010;Karp et al 2011). In general, birds were very sparse in the reforestation habitat.…”

“…Moreover, many birds have diverse and specialized requirements for food, which makes them good indicators for habitat change. A variety of types of agricultural development have reduced forest cover and thereby decreased the abundance and diversity of bird species relative to forest habitats in the Neotropics (Petit et al 1999;Estrada & Coates-Estrada 2005;Faria et al 2006;Harvey et al 2006;Scales et al 2008;Milder et al 2010) as well as the Paleotropics (Waltert et al 2004(Waltert et al , 2005Marsden & Symes 2008;Scales et al 2008).…”

Impacts of habitat change and protected areas on alpha and beta diversity of Mexican birds

“…We expected this effect to be amplified in Mexico, where the effectiveness of the existing PA network has been questioned (e.g. Sekercioglu et al, 2007;Milder et al, 2010) for avian diversity. We found, however, that human modification of natural habitats can increase local species richness, and it can also increase beta diversity (provided that some natural vegetation remains) because additional species are present in modified habitats that are not present in the unmodified vegetation.…”

“…MacGregor-Fors & Schondube, 2011), spatial scale and the metric of diversity measured (McGill et al, 2015). Mulwa et al, 2012) or low-intensity agricultural mosaics can hold similar numbers, or even more species than nearby natural habitat (regardless of their value for vulnerable species; Milder et al, 2010). Mulwa et al, 2012) or low-intensity agricultural mosaics can hold similar numbers, or even more species than nearby natural habitat (regardless of their value for vulnerable species; Milder et al, 2010).…”

Coupled social and ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification in Costa Rica and the future of biodiversity conservation in tropical agricultural regions

“…Previous studies indicate that some agricultural land use types are frequently used by native species for foraging, breeding, or simply as stepping stones to reach the next habitat patches (Kupfer et al, 2006;Fischer and Lindenmeyer, 2007;Harvey and Villalobos, 2007;Chazdon et al, 2009a;Gilbert-Norton et al, 2010;Vilchez Mendoza et al, 2014). Landscapes that are more heterogeneous, both in composition and configuration, are more likely to include these land use types, and therefore more likely to provide habitat and habitat connectivity for a variety of species than more homogenous landscapes (Daily et al, 2003;Fischer and Lindenmeyer, 2007;Milder et al, 2010;Fahrig et al, 2011). Combined, PE and LE offer a holistic understanding of humanmodified landscapes and link ecology to the social and political implications of environmental change.…”